An appeal against a request for transfer by a party for lack of jurisdiction and against such judgment shall be filed.

Since the issue of jurisdiction's existence or absence is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court, a party to a lawsuit cannot file an application for transfer on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction, it is not necessary to hold a trial on such application, and even if the court rendered a judgment rejecting the application for transfer, an appeal is not allowed.

Articles 29 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 80Ma242 Decided January 21, 1970; 69Ma1191 Decided June 23, 1980; 80Ma242

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 194 April 2, 1986, 86Ra94

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The issue of whether or not a Justice has jurisdiction is a matter of ex officio by the court, so that a party to a lawsuit can not file an application for transfer on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to hold a trial on the application for transfer of this reason, and even if the court rendered a judgment rejecting the application for transfer, an appeal is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 199Ma191, Jan. 21, 1970; Order 80Ma242, Jun. 23, 1980).

As to the decision to dismiss an appeal on the same ground by the court below, the first instance court of this case asserts that there is no jurisdiction, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for reappeal under Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)